Metsfanmax wrote:In principle this is exactly the same as the Rank Filter suggestion which has been rejected numerous times in various forms and will continue to be rejected as long as there is a belief in a non-exclusionary atmosphere on this site.

How about all of the stickied topics in the Callouts Forum? That seems like the site promoting exclusionary principles to me.

It seems like the site already supports this, why not just embrace it?

If you want to create private games with people you know, you're always welcome to. The principle is that public games should always be just that -- public.

Many people have suggested the Resign/Forfeit button, but doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Heck, people could ask that they get unlimited games for free, doesn't mean it will happen.

This would just segregate ranks, which from what I remember reading, the webmaster doesn't want. If you want a game with a certain rank, you can try going into the Callouts forum and post in the 1600+ game thread.

Obviously unlimited games for free won't happen. Let's stick with using reasonable requests as examples. Resign would be nice, but you know it would be abused for stat-padding, so that being denied is totally understandable.

I basically want a feature to automatically do what I already do manually.

This is why I stopped playing - I'm checking in for the first time in 2 years to see if this has changed. I guess it hasn't - I got sick of almost being able to tell who would win based on 1) is there someone ranked higher than everyone else, or 2) if there's a tie, then which good player has the most newbie's next to them.

If CC is worried about this feature leading to too few open games being available - then I would be happy with a compromise where maybe you couldn''t play two ratings blocked games in a row - and your first game can't be a ratings blocked gamw.

faramund wrote:This is why I stopped playing - I'm checking in for the first time in 2 years to see if this has changed. I guess it hasn't - I got sick of almost being able to tell who would win based on 1) is there someone ranked higher than everyone else, or 2) if there's a tie, then which good player has the most newbie's next to them.

If CC is worried about this feature leading to too few open games being available - then I would be happy with a compromise where maybe you couldn''t play two ratings blocked games in a row - and your first game can't be a ratings blocked gamw.

A lot has changed, most particularly how you play various maps and styles.

The real question is why you would expect to win more when you keep playing the same way. If you keep losing then, its because that is the level where you are playing those particular settings. Try something different. Try other maps, other settings. If you left 2 years ago, Nuke spoils, manual deployment were not even options. Or, try the cook's forum to learn the basic standard maps like the classic. If you like that kind of map, it is a good way to be competetive. (I personally don't like classic).

chapcrap wrote:Another person looking for a way to have an even, fun game.

lack, do you hear all of these requests?

Except rank does not really give you that information. Besides, too many higher ranked people will just refuse to play the lower ranks, meaning it will be even harder to climb the ladder.

I disagree. WIth rank segregation, it would be easier to climb the ladder.

If you have a pool of 100 players all ranked the same, the better players will rise to top and increase in rank, thus getting to play with the next group up. This would happen with all of the groups.

This isn't just speculation. This is from years of playing Yahoo! games like Spades and that's how it works there. If they didn't have a point cap at 3500 on Yahoo, people would have a ridiculous amount of points.

chapcrap wrote:Another person looking for a way to have an even, fun game.

lack, do you hear all of these requests?

Except rank does not really give you that information. Besides, too many higher ranked people will just refuse to play the lower ranks, meaning it will be even harder to climb the ladder.

I disagree. WIth rank segregation, it would be easier to climb the ladder.

If you have a pool of 100 players all ranked the same, the better players will rise to top and increase in rank, thus getting to play with the next group up. This would happen with all of the groups.

This isn't just speculation. This is from years of playing Yahoo! games like Spades and that's how it works there. If they didn't have a point cap at 3500 on Yahoo, people would have a ridiculous amount of points.

I have played those other games, also for years.. and I have played CC for several years. Spades has nothing to do with CC.

The reason rank matters little here is not the scoring, its the fact that we have so many different maps. Only if you play the same maps, styles with people who play those same maps, styles consistantly AND you play enough to overshadow the natural luck factor, only then does it really matter.

To compare a team, esc spoils on classic map with a 6 player assassin, no spoils on Fuedal or a 1 vs 1 with Nuke spoils on Waterloo, etc. ... they just don't compare.

Even if you have the exact same settings, you only get a real skill difference once you have played quite a few games. 100 with the same person, sure. !00 with different people on different maps.. no way!

Metsfanmax wrote:I will say that an option for low ranked, new players to exclude established players probably has few drawbacks -- if you want to play your first few games against low rankers until you get the hang of it, you should be able to do so. We just won't implement an option where it's available to everyone for any game.

perfect compromise!lowranks/newbies are protected from evil predators and the paying customers of this site still don't get what they want/have been suggesting for years.. everyone happy!

socxc9 wrote:Concise description:How nice, do you think, is it when you see a game that looks like this? The cadet is crossed out and the field marshal has won the game. Fair? I don't think so. The field marshal has no business fighting cadets and the cadet has no business losing points. I propose that, as part of the "Start a Game" form, a range of ranks can be put in to help cadets fight cadets, and field marshals fight field marshals.

You assume rank equals skill. It doesn't unless you stick to the same types of maps, the same style. (same spoils option, same game type, etc.)

Beyond that, poorer players playing good players is a way to learn. If you only play people who are your equal or worse, how will you ever improve?

That said, I have advocated some kind of very broad limits, optional, in suggestions. So have other people. These suggestions have always been turned down. I suggest you go back and look at those threads for the reasons.

socxc9 wrote:Concise description:How nice, do you think, is it when you see a game that looks like this? The cadet is crossed out and the field marshal has won the game. Fair? I don't think so. The field marshal has no business fighting cadets and the cadet has no business losing points. I propose that, as part of the "Start a Game" form, a range of ranks can be put in to help cadets fight cadets, and field marshals fight field marshals.

You assume rank equals skill. It doesn't unless you stick to the same types of maps, the same style. (same spoils option, same game type, etc.)

Beyond that, poorer players playing good players is a way to learn. If you only play people who are your equal or worse, how will you ever improve?

That said, I have advocated some kind of very broad limits, optional, in suggestions. So have other people. These suggestions have always been turned down. I suggest you go back and look at those threads for the reasons.

well said!

Silvanus wrote:perch is a North Korean agent to infiltrate south Korean girls

Rank restrictions are pointless precisely because rank does not reflect skill accurately.

That said, if it's something a majority of players want, it should be implemented. I mean, you can already create private games, and you can already choose who you play against, so giving people the option to create rank-restricted games probably wouldn't mean that all the games would suddenly become rank-restricted. There would still be people who would create games that are open to everyone, just like there are still public games even though you can create private ones.

Hm, maybe the rank-restriction option should be restricted to premium players, like private games are now.

I'm not sure if this would work, could be done, or if its even been tried before for that matter. But I'm wondering if when you start a game, one of the setting options could be a minimum rating to join. I think we've all had a bad experience with a new player who's just trying things out and decides its not for him or a straight troublemaker that seems to be sabotaging games, or a player- who through no fault of their own- is totally clueless. These players dont have ratings or are rated low for a reason. A piece of me tells me there is a reason why it hasnt been done already. I'm interested in your thoughts my Brothers and Sisters of the dice! " And may The Good Dice be with you always "--Yoda voice

Divide players up according to ranking? And then what... Non-premium players penned into their own area of the site? Female players given 'junior' status in any team match they play and reduced influence in decision making? Work camps for Cooks who wish to remain on this site?

barackattack wrote:Divide players up according to ranking? And then what... Non-premium players penned into their own area of the site? Female players given 'junior' status in any team match they play and reduced influence in decision making? Work camps for Cooks who wish to remain on this site?

and this is coming from someone with an avatar saying equality is for ugly losers?

barackattack wrote:Divide players up according to ranking? And then what... Non-premium players penned into their own area of the site? Female players given 'junior' status in any team match they play and reduced influence in decision making? Work camps for Cooks who wish to remain on this site?

and this is coming from someone with an avatar saying equality is for ugly losers?